<div dir="ltr">True, although it is pretty much impossible for me to prove that a Xian god doesn't exist. However, based on the lack of evidence, and our knowledge of how biological processes work, I would put the chances of an afterlife at near zero. Although I would assign higher odds that we're in a simulation since I could envision a mechanism, I'd still put them extremely low.<div><br></div><div>Tipler (the physics guy) wrote an interesting attempt to reconcile how the Xian resurrection would be possible once a certain computing horsepower was reached before the simulation hypothesis was really out there in the popular culture. I haven't read it in years but it's worth checking out if you haven't: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Immortality-Modern-Cosmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990/">https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Immortality-Modern-Cosmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990/</a><br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:47 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Still, that's a belief. What's to say that some kind of tiny physical processes like the exact moment and direction of atomic decay aren't actually ordained by a master? <div><br></div><div>Plus, if it can exist in the physical world, it's hardware imo. Maybe they have machines that not only can create a singularity but also read everything inside it and possibly affect things inside it like aforementioned.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:40 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Well, while I don't know how matter arises from a singularity, once it does, I believe in a clockwork universe of cause and effect from the initial event. A newly created universe unfolds over time with a chain of causation (arguably). I don't consider that the same thing as a simulation where a universe is actually running on some kind of hardware. I think a lo fidelity simulation IS possible, but it seems very unlikely that a simulation at this level of fidelity exists unless as you say, there is nothing there beyond a wave function until we look.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:26 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Well, some say that universes can be created naturally within our universe due to physical processes. If that's possible, why not a simulation? But yes, I do believe the simulation argument is pretty much identical to how many religions work, I just don't think it's impossible.<div><br></div><div>It's also possible that there are computation-saving tricks which manifest particularly (lol I guess that's a pun pun) as wave-particle duality. None of the particles are there unless we look.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:14 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I'm sure someone smarter than me has addressed this, but it seems obvious to me that there is absolutely no chance we are in a simulation (ok, close to none). I don't believe the processing power exists to accurately simulate the number of atoms we have access to, even on the immediate planet, let alone the visible universe. This isn't even considering subatomic particles, momentum, particle interactions, and other important pieces of information.<div><br></div><div>The simulation argument appears strikingly close to a religion to me.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:02 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I have always thought there were a few issues with the simulation argument.<div><br></div><div>One that I keep coming back to is the reality of the simulator's world itself.</div><div><br></div><div>Let's say that K_0 is equal to the number of worlds that are simulated with fidelity in the neighborhood of the fidelity of ours. This means that, comparing all the simulated worlds with the original world, there is a 1/K_0 chance that we are in the original world. And we reject the null hypothesis that we are in a real world, as long as 1/K_0 is less than some chosen probability which we can call p_real.</div><div><br></div><div>However, can't you make a similar argument for the world of the simulator? How many worlds are there with a fidelity close to theirs? Well, I would say that, since it requires more processing power, the amount of worlds like that is less than K_0, call it K_1. So comparing all the worlds like that to the world of their potential simulator, there is a 1/K_1 chance they are real. This is still likely less than p_real. </div><div><br></div><div>But if you keep applying this argument, eventually we reach a world which has so many levels of simulation in its simulations, that it's rare enough that their world is likely to be real.</div><div><br></div><div>The next question is, what the hell is that world like? Does that world simply have access to more processing power? Why?</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>